<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Learning Journal',
	'<{subtitle}>' => 'ENVS 1301: Introduction to Environmental Science',
	'<{copyright year}>' => '2018',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="Unit1">
	<h2>Unit 1</h2>
	<p>
		Hello!
		My name is Alexand(er|ra) Yst.
		(The wye in &quot;Yst&quot; is pronounced as a vowel as it would be in the words &quot;cr<strong>yst</strong>al&quot; or &quot;catal<strong>yst</strong>&quot;, though my name often gets mispronounced by others as &quot;Yyst&quot;, with the wye acting as both a consonant and a vowel.)
		I&apos;m a vegan, though I don&apos;t typically bring it up except when it&apos;s relevant, such as this introduction in a course on environmental science.
		I&apos;m vegan purely for sustainability reasons, not because I think that a human eating a cow is magically any less ethical than a fox eating a hare; we all do what we need to to survive.
		I&apos;m a computer science student and a Debian user.
		As of the time of writing this, I&apos;m currently completing my coursework on a Debian 9 laptop known as <a href="https://y.st./en/domains/bailey.local.xhtml"><code>bailey</code></a>.
		I keep a daily journal on <a href="https://y.st./">my website</a>, though at present, the link to it&apos;s a bit hidden; not that it matters much, due to the current censorship imposed on me and the site resulting in most of my journal pages being redacted until 2023.
		When I&apos;m not doing coursework, I&apos;m often programming mods for a game I enjoy called <a href="https://www.minetest.net/">Minetest</a>.
		It&apos;s an open-ended sandbox building game that, as of the last major revision, gets the entirety of its content through mods, allowing for a variety of gameplay styles.
		Even the default content is just added via bundled mods and can be removed by any player looking for something different.
		I&apos;ve hit a bit of a creative block at the moment though, due to the enormous size of my current project; I&apos;ve had to discontinue this project four times in the past because it&apos;s been too much for me, but this time I hope my new strategy will let me incrementally reach the goal.
		I&apos;m nonbinary in gender, making me a queer; hence why I&apos;m Alex or Alexand(er|ra), and not Alexander or Alexandra.
		I enjoy music, with my current favourite artists being <a href="https://professorshyguy.bandcamp.com/">Professor Shyguy</a> and <a href="https://www.lorenzosmusic.com/">Lorenzo&apos;s Music</a>.
		I&apos;ll give anything a listen though as long as it&apos;s covered by a {$a['CC BY']} or {$a['CC BY-SA']} license.
		I like to draw pixel art sometimes, though I&apos;m not particularly good at it.
		While I tend to be a very happy person, I always seem to have an <strong>*extremely morbid*</strong> view of things.
		For example, while it&apos;s true that one reason I&apos;ll never have children is because there&apos;s already such an overpopulation problem as it is without my adding to it, that&apos;s only one of a multitude of reasons.
		Another is that everyone dies.
		By creating a life, I&apos;d be sentencing that life to one day die, and once dead, everything they are is just gone forever.
		So what&apos;s the point in even coming to life?
		How could I do that to someone I&apos;m supposed to grow to <strong>*love*</strong>?
		That&apos;s not a burden I care to take on; the most loving thing I could do for my children is to not create them.
		(And yes, while I very much don&apos;t want my life to end, I find it extremely selfish of my parents for having created me in the first place, especially given their genetic issues that now I&apos;ve got to deal with.
		Again, I won&apos;t make the same mistake.
		I won&apos;t pass on my genetic flaws.)
	</p>
	<p>
		Why did I take this course?
		The short answer is that we&apos;re required to take <span title="Biology 1 for Health Studies Majors">BIOL 1121</span>, <span title="Introduction to Biology">BIOL 1301</span>, or <span title="Introduction to Environmental Science">ENVS 1301</span>.
		I had to pick one.
		To be honest, these questions of why we chose to take a given course make no sense in required courses, though I&apos;ve seen the question in several courses and so far have taken nothing but that which has been required of me.
		I&apos;ll complete my chosen courses, the electives, dead last.
		It was actually a tough decision though for this course, as I think I&apos;d be quite interested to take one of the biology courses and learn a bit more about how I myself function.
		However, in the end, I had to choose the course on environmental science, this course, as understanding how to better care for our planet is much more important than fulfilling some idle curiosity about how I personally operate.
		Compared to the planet, I&apos;m not really going to last very long, am I?
		(And there I go with the morbidity again.)
		Hopefully, I&apos;ll learn something helpful in reducing my personal negative impact on the planet, or even something to help have a positive impact.
		If I learn something of that nature, and I think I likely will, I won&apos;t regret having chosen this course over a biology one.
	</p>
	<p>
		In my area, we have too much formaldehyde in our air, which is toxic.
		I don&apos;t know of any major efforts to fix this, but we do have a &quot;smoke-free Oregon&quot; campaign going on here.
		The formaldehyde likely comes from people smoking cigarettes, so if successful, this should reduce the amount of formaldehyde in the air.
		The people in my area also don&apos;t handle waste properly.
		I don&apos;t know of anything going on to fix this, and in fact, it&apos;s getting worse.
		Our recycling centres aren&apos;t taking as many recyclables as they used to, resulting in more types of plastics being simply sent to landfills.
		My understanding is that we used to sell our recyclables to China, who is no longer taking them, and we don&apos;t have the local facilities we need to do it ourselves.
		Our rivers are also polluted, and I know of no efforts being made to correct this.
	</p>
	<p>
		Choosing a small project to implement is difficult.
		We need proper recycling facilities in the area, but that definitely constitutes a large project.
		I suppose the best small project for my area would be one of education.
		If we can get the locals to understand (and care about) the environmental issues in the area, we can more easily work toward change.
	</p>
	<p>
		Most of this week&apos;s reading material was review for me.
		However, one thing I did learn about is buffers.
		Sadly, these weren&apos;t covered in-depth, so I&apos;m probably going to look into them further on my own when I have time.
		They balance $a[pH] by combining with excess H+ or OH-, but it looks like each buffer is only able to combine with one or the other.
		So how does it differ from an acid or a base (alkaline)?
		Why does it not throw off the balance by combining with too much of the H+ or OH- like an acid or base would?
		These are things I want to look into later.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit2">
	<h2>Unit 2</h2>
	<p>
		There are many ways to reduce waste generation, recycle materials, and reuse goods (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2018).
		Several options exist in my community.
		For reducing waste and reusing goods, we have various second hand stores.
		Not too long ago, one of the main ones in the area shut down, but we still have at least two second hand store chains.
		For recycling, our local waste-disposal company offers recycling services to all its customers in addition to its trash haul-away services.
		That said, the company doesn&apos;t take as many sorts of plastic as they used to.
		Most likely due to China no longer buying our old plastics to melt down, the garbage company doesn&apos;t have a way to handle plastics they used to.
		We should get something more local set up, but haven&apos;t.
		We have food-donation services as well.
		I don&apos;t know a whole lot about them, but they give unused food to the poor.
		I know of no city-wide composting options.
		I&apos;m not sure we have anything in-city for dealing with electronic waste though.
		That said, my city of Springfield is a Siamese twin of another city, Eugene.
		In this next city over, they have an electronics recycling centre.
		They refurbish what they think they can sell, and anything they don&apos;t think will sell, they break apart into its component parts and sell to companies that melt out the metals and such.
		If the electronics themselves don&apos;t get reused, at least their component elements do.
	</p>
	<p>
		In the home, options are more limited.
		I can and do reuse things.
		For example, I wash out and refill jars to put new contents into.
		The water bottle I always tote around is also an old juice bottle that I&apos;ve repurposed.
		Nearly every item I own besides food and containers food is sold in is second-hand, from one source or another.
		I obviously can&apos;t process recyclables here at home, but I put recyclables in the proper receptacles to be processed by the city&apos;s waste-disposal company.
		I can&apos;t really do any composting at my place though; I live in a second-story apartment.
		I have no yard in which to put a compost bin.
	</p>
	<p>
		We do have some in-city options as I mentioned,but we don&apos;t have everything covered that we should.
		We need better recyclable material handling so we can process more types of plastic, for example.
		I guess a community compost bin could be helpful as well, though I&apos;m unsure of the feasibility of that.
	</p>
	<p>
		Most of what I learned this week was through the discussion assignment, though as I don&apos;t live in a hotspot, I suppose it doesn&apos;t directly apply to my life.
		As for what I learned that does apply, the most impactful thing I learned was the competitive exclusion principle.
		It explains so well why we humans, unlike other animals, are destroying entire ecosystems and disrupting so many natural balances.
		In short, when two life forms compete for the same resource, one will evolve not to use that resource or will die out (Doršner, 2015).
		Both the evolution and the dying out are done by the species unable to compete as well for the resource.
		We humans are a species that doesn&apos;t even require evolution any longer to adapt to new situations.
		Instead of adapting our bodies, we adapt our technology.
		This not only speeds our adaption to new situations, but also allows us to adapt to multiple, very different environments.
		That&apos;s not news to me.
		However, because we adapt to everything and outclass anything that would compete with us, we necessarily cause other species to either die out or evolve not to use the resources we use.
		This is incredibly depressing.
		Does it mean there&apos;s no hope for us achieving a balance with the rest of nature?
		I&apos;d like to think that intelligent, caring people could find a way.
		I doubt it&apos;d even be overly difficult; we&apos;d just need to keep our resource usage low, I think.
		However, that requires a high enough density of intelligent, caring people.
		Most people don&apos;t seem to care and don&apos;t seem to be as intelligent as they should be; there&apos;s too many selfish people and too many idiots.
		I should seek to minimise my resource usage where feasible; it won&apos;t be enough to counteract the damage done by others, but I can minimise the harm I do myself.
	</p>
	<p>
		So how is the course going for me so far?
		The answer is a bit complicated, but I&apos;ll try to be (kind of) brief.
		My school activities currently occupy a dark spot in my life; I&apos;m required by the school to keep things done here secret for the time being.
		(This is no fault of yours or this course&apos;s, but one of another of the university&apos;s departments.)
		I don&apos;t do well under such circumstances, and the situation causes me lethargy when it comes time to touch my coursework.
		Like a tree, I do much better when I&apos;m allowed to live in the light, rather than required to sit in the dark.
		I&apos;ve also got stressful life issues to deal with, which eat both my time and my energy.
		I don&apos;t even know how to be brief about that long list of problems, so I&apos;ll just leave it at &quot;life issues&quot;.
		Added together, these problems interfere with my ability to keep on top of the work.
		All things considered, I&apos;d say I&apos;m doing rather well in this course.
		That said, I&apos;d love to do better.
		I don&apos;t have the time nor the energy to absorb as much of the material as I&apos;d really like to.
		The material itself seems great, though it could be better formatted.
		I only mention that because this learning journal assignment directly asks about the material; it&apos;s barely worth mentioning.
		$a[PDF]s and sites that require JavaScript (such as the textbook website) take more effort to process than regular webpages though, specifically because I have to toggle JavaScript on to use them, then off when using the university&apos;s own website due to a killer bug in the JavaScript there.
		JavaScript-based websites also have a tendency to fight against the user.
		For example, I frequently use my middle mouse button to click a link and open it in a new tab so I can flip back and forth between the two pages.
		On the textbook website we&apos;re using, the JavaScript used there is programmed to switch pages upon middle click, so the process instead goes like this: I middle click, the page changes as if I&apos;d left clicked, I hit the back button, the page flips back, then I right click and use the &quot;open in new tab&quot; menu item.
		Obviously that slows me down, not to mention that it&apos;s rather annoying.
		For $a[PDF]s, my Web browser doesn&apos;t handle them as well as it should, requiring me to save them to disk permanently instead of simply saving them to the temporary files directory and opening them one time in a local application as it does other types of files.
		The problem is that it treats $a[PDF] files as somehow special; this is an issue in my Web browser, not the $a[PDF]s, but standard webpages are still much easier for me to process.
	</p>
	<div class="APA_references">
		<h3>References:</h3>
		<p>
			Doršner, K. (2015). Community Ecology | CK-12 Foundation. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/7.4/"><code>https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/7.4/</code></a>
		</p>
		<p>
			United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, January 2). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle | US EPA. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.epa.gov/recycle"><code>https://www.epa.gov/recycle</code></a>
		</p>
	</div>
</section>
<section id="Unit3">
	<h2>Unit 3</h2>
	<p>
		One of the main important services provided in my area is gas regulation.
		As our global CO<sub>2</sub> levels rise, climate change continues to worsen.
		However, my area (western Oregon) has a climate that supports trees very well.
		If not for changes made by humans, this place would likely be mostly forests.
		Trees pull CO<sub>2</sub> out of the air, trapping carbon and releasing the oxygen.
		Most of what plants are made from is the carbon they&apos;ve captured, so the larger they grow, the more carbon stays out of our atmosphere.
		A big part of what makes our area so supportive of forests is the large amount of precipitation we get.
		As a result, another important service provided by our ecosystem is water supply.
		Our watersheds provide both electricity (through hydroelectric dams) and clean drinking water.
	</p>
	<p>
		The threat to our forests is pretty obvious.
		We keep expanding further, cutting down more and more forests that had been intact for centuries.
		When we clear cut and replant in designated areas, we gain useful materials without doing too much harm.
		However, when we clear cut in new areas, either for the materials or to make space for more farms/homes, we do long-term damage.
		Some people are working toward reducing carbon emissions.
		However, the carbon that&apos;s already been released will still be in the air altering the climate.
		We need large forests to pull carbon back out of the air so as we reduce our emissions, the trees will help reverse the carbon emission process.
		As for water, our local rivers suffer from contamination.
		That contamination doesn&apos;t effect our electricity generation in any meaningful way, but if we keep polluting out rivers, we&apos;re not going to be able to filter all of those toxins out.
		We&apos;re going to poison ourselves.
		This of course ignores the fact that we&apos;re going to kill off the fish, which will surely disrupt other natural balances as well.
	</p>
	<p>
		I hate to say it, but reducing our reliance on animal products is the main option we have for stopping deforestation.
		It&apos;s not a view I like to push as no one wants to hear it, but short of drastically thinning our population, it&apos;s just the only option.
		(That said, I&apos;m also in favour of thinning the population through people willingly choosing not to create offspring.)
		It&apos;s a simple matter of natural effects of consumption.
		I forget the exact numbers, but each level up on a food chain only gets about ten percent of the energy from what it harvests from the level below.
		That means that when we use animal products, we necessarily need about ten times as much farmland to support those animals than if we directly used plant-based alternatives instead.
		That&apos;s a <strong>*drastic*</strong> difference!
		By eliminating our use of animal products, we decimate the amount of farmland we need, eliminating the need to continue cutting down more forests to make room for new farms.
		As for the water, we need to be careful about what we put into our rivers.
		For example, people often aren&apos;t careful about what they leave outside and allow to run into storm drains.
		Most if not all our local storm drains lead directly to the rivers.
	</p>
	<p>
		The book brought up an interesting point that I hadn&apos;t considered before: sexual reproduction results in new <strong>*combinations*</strong> of genes (Doršner, 2015).
		This probably seems obvious, but being someone that&apos;s never once wanted to reproduce, it&apos;s not something I&apos;ve thought much about.
		The book also mentions that some gene mutations have no effect on an organism&apos;s ability to survive and reproduce (Doršner, 2015).
		Putting these two concepts together though, we see that independently-occurring mutations may come together into the same organism, and though those mutations may have no effect on survival alone, they may combine to have either a positive or negative effect.
		Other situations are also possible, such as a mutation that alone is detrimental, but combines with another mutation, may be positive.
		This of course means that offspring of the carrier of the two mutations may or may not have the combines effect, as they may inherit zero, one, or both mutations.
		More than two mutations may interact as well.
	</p>
	<div class="APA_references">
		<h2>References:</h2>
		<p>
			Doršner, K. (2015). Discovering How Populations Change | CK-12 Foundation. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/5.1/"><code>https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/5.1/</code></a>
		</p>
	</div>
</section>
<section id="Unit4">
	<h2>Unit 4</h2>
	<p>
		The labels listed are all ones that show not the qualities of the product, but of the product&apos;s creation.
		The idea is that if people can more easily identify the impact the production of a product has, they can, if they choose to do so, make better choices.
		Supposedly, all the labels listed have to do with some sort of ecological impact, but there are actually other ethics-related labels mixed in as well.
		For example, several fair trade labels are listed.
		Most people don&apos;t have the time in their lives to research every company they&apos;re considering buying from and every product they&apos;re considering buying.
		These labels provide the on-the-spot information needed to make the right decision anyway.
	</p>
	<p>
		Purchasing choices are one of the most significant things we have at our disposal for influencing change.
		Most corporations are uncaring, driven only by greed.
		They can and will do whatever is effective at making them money.
		If the majority of consumers were to avoid products whose production harms the environment, companies would have no choice but to either get on board the environmentalism bandwagon or go out of business, either of which would be a win for the environment.
		For example, because animal product industries are hard on the environment, causing massive carbon emissions and requiring large amounts of farmland, I avoid animal-based products.
		As the human population continues to grow, the consumption of animal products grows with it.
		Deforestation is a natural result of this increased need for farmland.
		Other sorts of problems caused by the production of certain products include strip mining, pollution, and loss of natural purification systems such as wetlands.
	</p>
	<p>
		Using plant-based alternatives could easily be done in just about any major city.
		In smaller towns, there might not be the necessary options available in the few local shops to avoid animal products altogether, but it&apos;s easy enough in my city.
		By using plant-based options available, farmland needs can be shrunk, so we can sustain more people using the farmland we already have.
		We won&apos;t need to cut down more forests to make room for more farms, so habitats will be preserved.
		These habitats provide places for life forms to continue to thrive instead of going extinct, preserving biodiversity.
		Animal products are also known to have a heavy carbon footprint, so cutting down on their use can slow climate change, further preventing extinctions and preserving biodiversity.
	</p>
	<p>
		One thing I learned about this week was the Love Canal disaster.
		A company filled the canal with toxic waste, using a clay lining to seal it away.
		It should&apos;ve been obvious that wouldn&apos;t hold forever, and honestly, the company very likely knew that.
		They just didn&apos;t care.
		Then they went and sold the land to a school board for a single dollar, putting into the purchase contract that they couldn&apos;t be held liable for the inevitable damage caused by the toxic waste.
		I find it very difficult to believe the school board didn&apos;t see this coming, too.
		If someone&apos;s selling you a huge patch of land for a dollar, they&apos;re clearly up to something.
		The company just wanted to be rid of the now-toxic land and responsibility for it.
		The canal area was larger than the school needed, and they sold off the unused portion for housing.
		That turned out to be a mess, and the waste did all sorts of damage, such as poisoning people and plants, and dissolving tires and shoes.
	</p>
	<p>
		So how is the course going?
		Fairly well, given my situation.
		I explained the difficulties holding me back in <a href="#Unit2">Unit 2</a>, and nothing has changed since then.
	</p>
	<div class="APA_references">
		<h2>References:</h2>
		<p>
			Doršner, K. (2015). Case Study: The Love Canal Disaster | CK-12 Foundation. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/8.5/"><code>https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/8.5/</code></a>
		</p>
	</div>
</section>
<section id="Unit5">
	<h2>Unit 5</h2>
	<p>
		The idea behind cover crops is that with something rooted in the soil, soil is held in place and doesn&apos;t erode away.
		For much of the year, many farms aren&apos;t growing their typical crop (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013).
		For example, crops are often planted in the spring, continue growing during the summer, and are harvested in the winter.
		So what happens in the winter?
		Well, the fields are just bare, so the top soil is free to blow away.
		If a cover crop were planted during the off season, that soil would be retained for the next planting of the main crop.
		As an added bonus, cover crops help prevent damaging nitrogen run-off from polluting rivers and streams, while saving farmers money on needing to buy new nitrogen-based fertilisers.
		Well-chosen cover crops can even introduce nutrients back into the soil.
	</p>
	<p>
		Speaking of introducing nutrients back into the soil, another sustainability-enhancing practice is crop rotation.
		Some crops take more out of the soil than they put back.
		Cotton is particularly bad that way, and in the past, was known to devastate farmland making it infertile.
		You may remember this from history class in grade school; in my class, it was referred to as &quot;the curse of cotton&quot;.
		Some other crops have this same effect to a much lesser extent though.
		However, there are crops that add nutrients to the soil as a natural part of their growth.
		Legumes (such as peas and peanuts), beans, and alfalfa have been shown to add needed nitrogen to the soil, and they add it in a way that doesn&apos;t leach into the water supply as badly as that of traditional fertilisers (Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d.).
		Complex crop rotations can also drive down pest populations without the need for noxious pesticides.
		Pests tend to need specific types of food, so by rotating through crops, farmers can cut off the food supply of pests for years at a time.
		By the time a crop-relevant pest has moved in to take advantage of the new crop, it&apos;ll be replaced by an even newer crop, and so on.
	</p>
	<p>
		I think both of these methods would work fantastically in my area.
		Crop rotation should work well anywhere you can grow several crops at.
		We get such consistent rainfall here that plants tend to thrive, so we can grow just about anything that doesn&apos;t need too much sun.
		(The frequent rainy days cut down on the amount of sun we get.)
		Also because of the rain, we get a lot of run-off into rivers and streams.
		Cover crops could stop the loss of out top soil and lessen the nitrogen pollution of our waterways.
	</p>
	<p>
		This week I learned that most electricity used by people is generated through fossil fuel combustion (Doršner, 2015), using the fossil fuels to heat water and using the resultant steam to turn turbines.
		I knew that that was <strong>*a*</strong> way to generate electricity, but I had no idea it was the <strong>*most widely-used*</strong> way.
		That&apos;s rather depressing.
		I&apos;m lucky enough to live in an area where for the most part, we don&apos;t do that.
		We get most of our power from hydroelectric dams.
		It seems most people aren&apos;t as fortunate as I am though, and don&apos;t get their energy from green sources.
		I guess that&apos;s one more reason I shouldn&apos;t move away from this area without doing research on my potential new home town first.
		I&apos;d never want to live somewhere where I couldn&apos;t even turn on a light at night without it weighing on my conscience.
		I also learned that only 36 percent of the trapped energy from fossil fuels actually becomes electricity.
		The rest is just lost.
		I knew such generation methods were inefficient and that much of the energy was lost, but I didn&apos;t know more than half was lost.
	</p>
	<div class="APA_references">
		<h3>References:</h3>
		<p>
			Doršner, K. (2015). Electricity Grid and Sustainability Challenges | CK-12 Foundation. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/14.6/"><code>https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/14.6/</code></a>
		</p>
		<p>
			Union of Concerned Scientists. (2013, January). Cover Crops: Public Investments Could Produce Big Payoffs (2013). Retrieved from <a href="https://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/cover-crops.html"><code>https://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/cover-crops.html</code></a>
		</p>
		<p>
			Union of Concerned Scientists. (n.d.). Healthy Farm Practices: Crop Rotation and Diversity. Retrieved from <a href="https://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/crop-diversity-and-rotation.html"><code>https://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/advance-sustainable-agriculture/crop-diversity-and-rotation.html</code></a>
		</p>
	</div>
</section>
<section id="Unit6">
	<h2>Unit 6</h2>
	<h3>Myths</h3>
	<p>
		Two of the most interesting myths on that list to me are &quot;Removing all CO<sup>2</sup> would make little difference&quot; and &quot;Antarctica is too cold to lose ice&quot;.
	</p>
	<p>
		I&apos;d never even considered completely removing carbon dioxide from the air.
		For starters, that&apos;d kill off all the plants, not to mention that it&apos;d probably make the world <strong>*too*</strong> cold, particularly at night.
		We simply wouldn&apos;t be able to retain our heat.
		Too much CO<sub>2</sub> is undoubtedly a bad thing, but so is too little.
		We need to try to return levels to their natural state.
		The answer provided on the list though is that it&apos;d cause most water to precipitate as well, nearly entirely cancelling out the greenhouse effect.
		This pretty much backs up my thoughts: no greenhouse effect means no heat retention.
	</p>
	<p>
		As for Antarctica ... it <strong>*was*</strong> too cold to lose ice, but not any more.
		We broke that stability.
		The fact that some people can&apos;t grasp that in light of rising temperatures, a place at one point very cold might not still be so cold is outright stupefying.
	</p>
	<h3>My new view on climate change</h3>
	<p>
		My view on climate change certainly has changed because of this course, though not the way the creators of this course intended.
		I form my views in a very logical and science-based way.
		I&apos;ve always known that yes, we&apos;re breaking our planet and yes, we need to knock it off before we kill everything around us and, eventually, ourselves.
		However, over the course of this course, I&apos;ve learned of new concepts.
	</p>
	<p>
		In particular, I&apos;ve learned of one of the major driving forces behind both evolution and extinction.
		I forget what the concept is called, and due to the fact that my notes are currently censored, it&apos;s next to impossible for me to find that information within a reasonable time frame.
		However, the concept itself is rather simple: when multiple species all depend on the same resource, only the best-adapted is able to succeed.
		All others must either evolve not to need that resource any more or they&apos;ll go extinct.
		The natural tendency of any species is to use up all of the resource that it makes use of.
	</p>
	<p>
		So what does this mean in terms of climate change?
		The natural tendency of humans, being a species of life form, is to use up all of every resource we can, killing off everything else around us or making it evolve not to compete with us any more.
		We humans, being able to adapt quicker than other species through use of advanced tools and sciences instead of evolution, will always come out on top.
		This very simple concept explains so well why we&apos;re so damaging to our world, but it also shows that we&apos;re not likely to change any time soon.
		To do anything other than kill our planet and eventually ourselves would be to go against our nature; against the nature of life itself.
	</p>
	<p>
		We can change.
		Honestly we can.
		We can fight our nature and behave like reasonable citizens of this planet.
		I fight my own evil nature all the time, ignoring urges and using logic to reason with myself, preventing me from doing what I shouldn&apos;t.
		Many others do the same.
		However, as a whole, this isn&apos;t something we can expect everyone (or even a majority) to do.
		We can try, and I&apos;ll continue trying, but I&apos;ve lost hope.
		I no longer believe it to be within the capability of the human race as a whole, not on a physical level but on a mental level, to interact in a positive way with the rest of nature.
		I&apos;ve always known humans are a terrible species, but through this course, I&apos;ve learned that what makes us so terrible is so fundamental not only to us, but to all life.
		As we continue to consume everything around us, of course we&apos;ll continue laying waste to the global climate.
	</p>
	<h3>There are many reasons to reduce consumption of oil, including an ultimately finite supply, the high cost and lost economic stimulus of payments to foreign producers, the threat of interruption of supply due to weather, natural disaster, terrorism or geopolitical decisions, and the threat of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. Which of these reasons are the most important? Will their relative importance change with time?</h3>
	<p>
		Which reason is most compelling depends on who you ask; there is no one right answer.
		First, let&apos;s address the high price we shell out to foreign governments for oil.
		I don&apos;t think the problem here is what people think it is.
		Paying another country for a valuable export they have isn&apos;t a big deal.
		The problem isn&apos;t that we&apos;re sending money over seas.
		The real problem is that we&apos;re not pulling in enough money <strong>*from*</strong> over seas.
		We should be striving to create valuable resources ourselves.
		Specialisation is one thing, but not having much to offer is an entirely different issue.
		If we stopped buying oil, it&apos;s treat a symptom, but not really treat the problem in any way.
		That said, striving to be independent is itself a noble goal as well, but it pales in comparison to the other reasons on the list.
	</p>
	<p>
		Next, let&apos;s address the issue of threat of supply interruption.
		On the surface, this is pretty scary.
		Then you dig deeper, and it gets scarier.
		However, it doesn&apos;t address a very key concept: we can still face supply interruptions caused by natural disasters and such for locally-produced energy.
		Cutting off dependence on oil completely isn&apos;t the solution here.
		The solution is to spread out and use many types of resources.
		Not only would we have less of an impact on each individual energy source, we&apos;d also be less affected ourselves if any one energy source was cut off from us.
	</p>
	<p>
		For that matter, the finite supply of oil is just a specific case of us getting cut off from access.
		The difference is that the finite supply makes this cut off access both inevitable and permanent.
		Again, as long as we&apos;ve invested in other energy sources, we&apos;d be able to transition away from fossil fuels when the time comes that we need to.
		We might as well use what we have left in the ground while we work on diversifying, right?
	</p>
	<p>
		That said, we still need to stop using fossil fuels entirely.
		Which brings us to the final reason on the list: climate change.
		We&apos;re doing irreversible damage to our own ecosystem, as well as the other ecosystems of the planet.
		Eventually, we&apos;re going to make our planet uninhabitable; many species have already died off, unable to cope with the damage.
		In my opinion, climate change is the main, if not only, reason we need to stop using fossil fuels.
	</p>
	<h3>How the course is going</h3>
	<p>
		Keeping up has been difficult.
		I thought at first that this was caused by the growing stress put on me by the school.
		(None of that stress comes from this course specifically, but it impacts my ability to keep up in this course none the less.)
		The stress has been impacting me physically too, leaving me without the energy to get hardly anything done.
	</p>
	<p>
		Or so I thought.
		However, I&apos;ve started getting an ear infection; the last time I had an ear infection that felt like this, it&apos;d been a tooth infection that had crept up to the inside of my ear.
		And you know what?
		Another symptom of this spreading infection was a dark cloud that kept my emotional state sour, and my lethargy at a high point.
		The dentist said I had one last tooth that&apos;d get infected eventually.
		It had to go.
		But after having <strong>*just*</strong> had five other teeth pulled, I didn&apos;t have the emotional strength to handle one more just yet.
		I inherited terrible teeth from my mother, and they&apos;re all going to have to be pulled eventually, but I wanted to put this one off a while so I could recover.
		People with bad $a[DNA] such as my mother really have no business spreading that $a[DNA].
		I won&apos;t make the same mistake though.
	</p>
	<p>
		Anyway, so my growing lethargy and stress level are likely caused by this tooth, which as almost certainly become infected as the dentist predicted.
		I need to have it pulled.
		The pain will incapacitate me for a day or two as far as coursework is concerned, seeing as I never take any pain killers even after operations such as this, but after that, keeping up with the coursework should become way more manageable.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit7">
	<h2>Unit 7</h2>
	<p>
		My country doesn&apos;t have any coral reefs; those tend to form only in more tropical climates, as far as I&apos;m aware.
		We do have rivers, lakes, and coastal areas/oceans though.
		I don&apos;t myself live near the ocean, so I decided to look at rivers, seeing as we&apos;re supposed to address how the ecological issues impact us directly.
		One of the major rivers in my region is the Willamette River, which passes through my city of Springfield and our Siamese twin city of Eugene.
		This river seems to be suffering from a number of ecological issues.
	</p>
	<h3>Issues</h3>
	<p>
		First, we have the pollution.
		It got so bad that we had to add stronger anti-pollution regulations on businesses and actually shut down several companies that couldn&apos;t pass muster.
		We also brought in a bunch of sediment to cover up the polluted sediment (Wikipedia, n.d.).
		We didn&apos;t cover it up as in try to hide it, but as in we literally buried the polluted riverbed to try to stop the contaminates that&apos;d settled from the water from continuing to leach back into the water.
		That worked, I guess, but the pollution&apos;s still there.
		That can&apos;t be good.
		I imagine that&apos;ll come back to bite us at some point.
	</p>
	<p>
		Another problem is that we continuously clear away naturally-occurring debris from the river.
		This river, like many, contains fallen trees when in its natural state.
		These snags slow the water flow, preventing the washing away of sediment and providing homes for fish and other aquatic life.
		People love to go boating and such though, so the snags get removed to make that possible (Wikipedia, n.d.).
		Like I said, the sediment making up the surface of the riverbed conceals a deeper layer full of harmful contaminants though.
		So ... yeah.
		The faster river speeds caused by the lack of obstacles is probably going to cause the contaminants to be released again sooner rather than later.
		Joy.
	</p>
	<p>
		We also have dams set up on the river for various reasons, including power generation.
		Hydroelectric power is cleaner than fossil-fuel-driven power, but it isn&apos;t without its drawbacks.
		They&apos;ve damaged the breeding grounds of the local fish population (Wikipedia, n.d.).
	</p>
	<p>
		While not tied to the river directly, the land <strong>*around*</strong> the river suffers from ecological problems as well.
		We used to have a lot of floodplain forests here, but now those are mostly gone, torn down to make room for cities and farmland (Wikipedia, n.d.).
	</p>
	<h3>Direct effects</h3>
	<p>
		This assignment says to discuss how these issues impact me and my family directly.
		I live alone; I don&apos;t see impacts on my family because I&apos;m not around them hardly ever.
		Work and school keep me pretty busy, so we don&apos;t talk much, at least not about things that matter.
		This especially applies to my mother, with whom I speak the most, but who also wigs out if you try to bring up anything morality-related, such as environmentalism.
		My sister would love discussing this sort of thing, but I don&apos;t speak with her nearly often enough.
	</p>
	<p>
		As for me, I struggle to see how any of this has a direct impact on me.
		I care.
		Honestly I do.
		Otherwise, I wouldn&apos;t even be taking this course.
		As I said back in <a href="#Unit1">Unit 1</a>, I chose this course over one on psychology because I felt this course would help me more in fulfilling my duty to the planet.
		However, the only real time I spend outside these days is either on errands, during my commute, or on rare occasions, a bike ride through town to de-stress, which doesn&apos;t pass by any bodies of water.
	</p>
	<p>
		The low water quality must reach me through my drinking water, but it doesn&apos;t have enough of an effect for me to notice it.
		Maybe poor water quality is responsible for some of my minor health issues, such as my dry, cracking skin?
		Perhaps poor water quality is what sent me to the hospital about four times as a child with breathing issues?
		I don&apos;t really have a way to know that though.
		As far as I know, the skin issues are from poor genetics on my father&apos;s side.
		It&apos;s hard to blame the water for my past breathing issues either, as no one around me suffered from the same problem.
	</p>
	<h3>Reducing the problem</h3>
	<p>
		I think removing the dams would do more harm than good.
		The clean power they provide allows us to avoid causing even greater harm through fossil fuel consumption.
		The other issues could be worked on though.
	</p>
	<p>
		First of all, let&apos;s look at the stricter regulations on businesses that pollute the river.
		These businesses aren&apos;t allowed to pollute beyond a certain threshold.
		But why are we allowing them to pollute the river <strong>*at all*</strong>?
		That seems like something that should be fixed, perhaps gradually over time.
	</p>
	<p>
		In regards to the clearing of fallen trees and other debris from the river, we should discontinue that practice.
		Yeah, the river won&apos;t be so great for boating and rafting any more, but there are other things people can do with their time and there are other places to go boating and rafting at.
	</p>
	<p>
		As for the destruction of floodplain forests, the obvious answer is that we need to known that off.
		I&apos;d like to say that we should convert the repurposed land back into floodplain forests by attempting to restore the land, then replanting, but honestly, that&apos;s much easier said than done.
		I mean, what are we going to do?
		Tear down cities and leave people homeless?
		Steal farmer&apos;s land that they legally own?
		I&apos;m not sure reversing this is feasible.
		The best we can do is stop the problem from getting any worse.
	</p>
	<h2>Cones of depression</h2>
	<p>
		One interesting thing I learned this week was the existence of cones of depression (Doršner, 2015).
		I found it very interesting that water behaves in such a way.
		Normally, when we see water, it&apos;s not in the ground.
		If we remove water from one place, the surrounding water immediately flows in to fill the gap.
		Instead of the water level being lowered in one spot, it&apos;s lowered in the entire vessel.
		However, it doesn&apos;t work that way in the ground.
		Water is a bit sticky, so given a solid surface to attach to, such as the surfaces of ground particles, it stays in place more, slowing its movement.
		Instead of water levels dropping in the entire water table, a localised, inverted spike of dryness forms.
	</p>
	<div class="APA_references">
		<h3>References:</h3>
		<p>
			Doršner, K. (2015). Water Supply Problems and Solutions | CK-12 Foundation. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/13.2/"><code>https://www.ck12.org/user:zg9yc25lckbnbwfpbc5jb20./book/Essentials-of-Environmental-Science/section/13.2/</code></a>
		</p>
		<p>
			Wikipedia. (n.d.). Willamette River - Wikipedia. Retrieved from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River"><code>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River</code></a>
		</p>
	</div>
</section>
<section id="Unit8">
	<h2>Unit 8</h2>
	<p>
		I&apos;d have to say the most convincing argument I&apos;ve heard so far in this course has been the one about why humans cause so much extinction.
		It&apos;s been the biggest shaper of my attitude and beliefs in this entire course.
		I&apos;m no longer convinced humanity has what it takes to reach a sustainable behaviour set.
		Quite frankly, we <strong>*definitely*</strong> have the physical capabilities, but I don&apos;t think there are enough people able to make the right choice.
		People that can make the effort to make the sustainable choice are by far the minority.
	</p>
	<p>
		With that in mind, the only way to get out of the unsustainable rut we&apos;re in is if enough people that <strong>*can*</strong> make the right decisions are put in power and can drive the herd to a sustainable outcome.
		For example, people love driving their fossil-fuel-burning motor vehicles, often even recreationally.
		It&apos;s not that they need to get somewhere, it&apos;s that they actively enjoy driving and don&apos;t want to pay the higher cost for an electric vehicle.
		This is, of course, only one example.
		If people in power can put in place the right incentives and deterrents, people can and will break old habits.
		Once new habits are formed and passed down to offspring, we stand a chance of not falling back to our current, unsustainable way of doing things.
	</p>
	<h2>Running a city</h2>
	<p>
		Along those lines, if I had control over a city, one of the first things I&apos;d do is make sustainability a part of the required curriculum of schoolchildren.
		We&apos;re not getting far unless we can get future generations into the right mindset.
	</p>
	<p>
		I&apos;d also need to make sure our electricity came from a green source.
		For example, if that city was here in my home state of Oregon, the city&apos;s power would probably already be coming from hydroelectric dams.
		The first step would already be complete before I started.
		If the city lied elsewhere, I may need to do get the city weaned off the current power supplies and get better ones set up.
		Tax breaks for setting up solar panels could be helpful if the area was sunny, and I&apos;d put up solar panels on any and all government-controlled real estate, such as at bus stops, government offices, city hall, et cetera.
		If we didn&apos;t have much sun, maybe we&apos;d have wind and I could set up projects for getting wind turbines set up.
		It really depends on the location and the resources we had available; I can&apos;t really plan until I know what the city is like.
	</p>
	<p>
		The next step would be very high taxes on fossil fuels.
		All government-controlled vehicles would be required not to burn fossil fuels, and any citizen wanting to burn fossil fuels would either have to leave town to get these fuels or would have to pay about double what people in other places pay.
		Maybe taxes wouldn&apos;t be quite that high, but they&apos;d be high enough to get people thinking about switching away from fossil fuel consumption.
		Sales of fossil-fuel-burning devices, such as gasoline-powered cars and generators, would be banned.
		Again, you can bring it in, but you&apos;d have to shop elsewhere.
		Electric cars and would be encouraged.
		Funds from the high fuel taxes can be used to help subsidise electric cars for first-time owners.
		Once enough of the population was converted, the logical next step would be to slowly ban fossil fuel sales in the city altogether.
	</p>
	<p>
		I like the pedestrian street idea that Curitiba, Brazil uses, but I&apos;m not sure reconstructing the streets in an existing city is feasible.
	</p>
	<p>
		Another important change I&apos;d make is to construct local recycling facilities.
		In my country, the United States, we used to sell our recyclables to China.
		We didn&apos;t process them ourselves.
		In fact, I&apos;m pretty sure we still do that.
		However, China stopped accepting a lot of our waste plastics.
		Instead of these getting recycled now, they go to landfills.
		I don&apos;t think one city can process the recyclable plastics of the country, but we should be able to recycle our own plastics used within the city.
	</p>
	<p>
		Regulations on businesses would be made much stricter.
		Some of this would address issues outside the scope of environmentalism, so I&apos;ll skip over those.
		However, several environment-preserving regulations would be either put in place or increased in degree.
		For example, gaseous emissions would be limited and dumping into bodies of water would be outright prohibited.
		Public transportation and hired transportation (such as taxis), if not run by the city, would be required to use electric vehicles.
		(If run by the city, public transportation would already fall into a group required to use electric vehicles anyway.)
		There&apos;s a fine line we&apos;d need to straddle though.
		We&apos;d need to set up the right stipulations to coax companies into cleaning up their act without instead getting them to flee the area and move somewhere where regulations are more lax.
		Otherwise, we lose jobs for our citizens.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
